David Cardwell, M.D. v. Marianne McDonald
356 S.W.3d 646
| Tex. App. | 2011Background
- This is an interlocutory appeal regarding whether McDonald's money-damages suit against Cardwell is a health care liability claim (HCLC) subject to the TMLA expert-report requirement.
- McDonald alleges Cardwell used a false pretense of marriage counseling to obtain information for her husband’s divorce proceeding and produced a false psychiatric diagnosis of McDonald for use in the divorce.
- McDonald did not serve an expert report because she treated the claim as non-HCLC; Cardwell moved to dismiss after the 120-day deadline and the district court denied.
- The record shows Cardwell treated McDonald’s husband (not McDonald) and never treated McDonald as a patient; McDonald participated in sessions as part of a family context.
- The court analyzes whether the facts underlying McDonald’s claims implicate Cardwell’s specialized medical duties to a patient, thus constituting an HCLC, while recognizing a separate non-HCLC theory based on alleged misleading conduct to secure McDonald’s participation.
- The court ultimately holds that some allegations amount to an HCLC requiring dismissal for lack of an expert report, while other allegations constitute a separate non-HCLC claim that is not subject to the same dismissal, and the matter is remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether McDonald’s claims against Cardwell are HCLCs under the TMLA | McDonald asserts HCLC based on Cardwell’s diagnosis and treatment-related actions involving Brian. | McDonald’s claims largely rely on medical-care elements to which HCLC rules apply; no expert report served. | Partial: some claims constitute HCLC and require dismissal for lack of expert report; other claims do not overlap with HCLC and survive. |
| Whether McDonald, as a non-patient, can be a claimant under the TMLA | Legislature expands who may be a claimant; McDonald could be harmed by Cardwell’s health-care-related conduct. | HCLC predicates breach of duties owed to patients; McDonald was not a patient. | Non-patient claim viability acknowledged; McDonald may assert non-HCLC claims separate from the HCLC portion. |
| Whether the district court should dismiss the HCLC portion under Yamada and related authorities | Yamada requires service of an expert report for HCLCs before dismissal. | McDonald failed to serve an expert report for the HCLC portion; dismissal is required. | Yes, the HCLC portion must be dismissed for failure to serve an expert report. |
| Whether the non-HCLC portion of the complaint can be pursued without an expert report | Non-HCLC theories do not rely on the same professional standard; expert report not required. | The pleading still contains HCLC-aligned facts; need careful separation. | The district court did not err in denying dismissal as to the non-HCLC portion; remand for further proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Diversicare Gen. Partner, Inc. v. Rubio, 185 S.W.3d 842 (Tex. 2005) (identifies factors for inseparability of medical services doctrine)
- Marks v. St. Luke's Episcopal Hosp., 319 S.W.3d 658 (Tex. 2010) (defines elements of HCLC; focus on essence of claim and standards)
- In re Jorden, 249 S.W.3d 416 (Tex. 2008) (defines 'cause of action' for TMLA purposes)
- Yamada v. Friend, 335 S.W.3d 192 (Tex. 2010) (emphasizes focus on underlying nature of claim under TMLA)
- Diversicare Gen. Partner, Inc. v. Rubio, 185 S.W.3d 842 (Tex. 2005) (reiterates standard for determining whether an act is part of medical services)
- St. John v. Pope, 901 S.W.2d 420 (Tex. 1995) (physician-patient duty requirement without relationship)
- Pallares v. Magic Valley Elec. Coop., Inc., 267 S.W.3d 67 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2008) (non-patient HCLC considerations discussed)
- Garland Cmty. Hosp. v. Rose, 156 S.W.3d 541 (Tex. 2004) (expert testimony required for certain professional-negligence claims)